Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1630 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

There has been well-documented discomfort with interpretations of the working party's May 1998 report, Victims support in the ACT, in light of the legislation as presented by the ACT government. Key recommendations of that report, however, included the establishment of a comprehensive, but not exclusive, victims services scheme, improved victims and witnesses support programs, and the retention of financial assistance for physical and psychological criminal injuries.

Remarkably, the bill tabled by the ACT government in mid-1998 went further in restricting access to financial assistance and eliminating freedom of choice. Objections were raised publicly by victim support groups and legal and professional associations.

The bill was referred to the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, chaired by Paul Osborne, in December 1998. The committee received 18 written submissions from key victims service, legal and government organisations, and conducted a full day of public hearings. The committee's report was tabled in June 1999. Fundamental recommendations were that all references to permanent in the special assistance provision were removed, that financial assistance to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence was provided, that such victims were not disadvantaged by the introduction of the new scheme, that involvement in the proposed victims services scheme be voluntary, and that retrospective loss of entitlements be removed from the legislation.

The Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1998 was debated and passed in the early morning of 9 December 1999. Key amendments were the introduction of compensation for pain and suffering for police officers, emergency service employees and victims of sexual assault only, and a requirement for victims to pursue workers compensation entitlements before seeking financial assistance under the scheme. The act came into force on 24 December 1999.

Of course, the inadequacies, the inconsistency and the inelegance of that legislation were very clear to all of us who opposed it at that time. I presume that they were clear to those who supported it as well, but no defence was made of these inequities at the time. Mr Humphries was particularly notable in his avoidance of key issues, and neither Mr Osborne, who failed to support his own recommendations, nor Mr Rugendyke, who moved the more controversial amendments, made any contribution at all to the debate.

We hope that this time those members will contribute to the debate. This is particularly important for Mr Osborne. As chair of the committee of inquiry into this bill, which ran over many months last year, Mr Osborne received extensive, detailed submissions from extremely hardworking expert groups in close contact with the community. The committee weighed up a number of competing interests and authorised a comprehensive report, with a number of substantial recommendations. We would like to understand why his position changed when it came to the vote on the government's bill.

I believe the case for making changes to last year's legislation is clear. I believe that the Canberra community can and should be served by law that treats people fairly, that does not serve and is not constructed by people as serving special interests to the detriment of the common good.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .